Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/15/2014

Appasab S Sindoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager of Oriental Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.N. Dindwar

22 Jun 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Smt. S.S. Kadrollimath, Member).

ORDER

          The complainant has filed the complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in insurance service of repudiation of the claim in respect of theft of insured vehicle.

2) O.Ps. in the version have denied the deficiency in service and justified the repudiation on the ground that there was delay in intimation of the theft and thereby terms and conditions of the policy are violated.

3) The O.P. has filed affidavit and complainant also filed affidavit and certain documents are produced.

4) We have heard the arguments and also perused the records including written arguments.

5) Now the point for our consideration is that, whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and is entitled to the reliefs sought?

6) Finding on the point is in Negative, for the following reasons.

REASONS

7) It is not in dispute that the complainant was owner of the vehicle K.A-23 V-7891 and it was insured with the O.P. Company for the period of 4/12/2010 to 3/12/2011.

8) The complainant has alleged that on 4/01/2011 said vehicle was parked at Shri. Shivayogi Murgendra Swami College, Athani and hand locked, later noticed that it was missing. The complainant reported the matter of missing to the concerned police station on 27/1/2011 under the Crime No. 45/2011. The police did not trace the vehicle. Ultimately the complainant reported the theft of the vehicle to the O.Ps. on 17/3/2011. The O.P. has not settle the claim.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   9) Amongst other contention of O.P. in the version has denied certain allegations made in the complaint and contended that though the alleged theft occurred on 4/1/2011 the complainant lodged the complaint on 27/01/2011 nearly about 23 days from the date of the theft. Further the complainant intimated O.P. on 17/3/2011 nearly after 73 days. The complainant fail to produce the Driving Licence as sought by the insurance company and even the complainant has not approached insurance Ombudsman to get redress is grievances and even that the complainant ought to have produced the D.L. before the forum. Hence willfully the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence it is submitted that there is no deficiency in service.        

10) As noted above, certain facts are not in dispute. There is delay in lodging the complaint to the Police and so also, reporting of theft to the Insurance Company.

11) Under the circumstances, it is to be considered whether repudiation of the claim is just or otherwise.

12)  The O.Ps. relied on the certain decisions wherein the Court observed that delay in lodging F.I.R and delay in intimation to insurance company is fatal and upheld the repudiation of claim by insurance company. Hon’ble National Commission reported in I (2014) CPJ 18, 54, 71 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that repudiation of the claim on the ground of delay in reporting or informing theft is just and legal.

13) As noted here before, admittedly, there is delay on the part of the complainant to report the theft of the vehicle to the Police as well as to the O.P. Insurance Company.

 14) Considering the facts, evidence on record and the conclusion arrived at, following order:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. (Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 22^nd day of June 2015).

          Member                    Member                    President.

gm*